|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 272 Records
-
1993 (7) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... in or in relation to the manufacture rsquo has a very wide amplitude it not merely includes the processes and inputs essential for or incidental or accessory to the completion of manufacture (including deemed manufacture) but any item or process which is essential for making the final product marketable. Therefore, any material or item which was normally so used and was, as a matter of commercial practice, provided normally with the final product ready for delivery at the factory gate and was not an optional accessory, would qualify as an input for the purposes of Modvat. 6. In the instant case admittedly the floor mats were specifically designed for use in particular types of motor vehicles and were normally supplied with it. They obviously constituted one of the items which rendered the vehicle fit for marketing at the factory gate. 7. Hence concurring with the conclusion of Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial) I also uphold the impugned order and reject the Departmental appeal.
-
1993 (7) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... 1. I agree with learned Judicial Member that the Court is entitled to lift the corporate veil and see whether the creation of separate entities was only a facade or in reality they were two entities as claimed and it requires going into the depth of the case and appreciation of evidence as much as the law. I, therefore, agree that there was no cause for modification of the order already passed. 12. In respect of Stay Application No. 1477/92 as well I also agree that it was required to be rejected on the same grounds as the Application No. 2224/91. 13. The appellants were allowed extension of time for pro-deposit of the duty from the date of receipt of this order as mentioned in the order of Hon rsquo ble Member (Judicial), failing which their appeals are liable to be dismissed without further notice. However, as the order is being issued now, the matter may be listed for reporting compliance on 11th October 1993 subject to the concurrence of the Hon rsquo ble Judicial Member.
-
1993 (7) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Offence - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... Bank godown could again and again be deposited therein, as the need may arise. 31. No case of evasion of Central Excise duty could be made out solely on the basis of the goods pledged with the Bank. 32. In the case before us whatever goods were seized, were seized from the godowns of the manufacturer. No evidence of their removal had been adduced. 33. The charge of evasion of Central Excise duty has to be based on the ldquo tangible evidence rdquo , as observed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v Union of India, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 172). The Honourable Supreme Court has held that the findings ldquo based only on inferences involving unwarranted assumptions rdquo were ldquo vitiated by an error of law. rdquo They added that it would not be right to base calculations on the surmises. 34. Keeping all the above considerations in view, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1993 (7) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... rried out in order to make the MCBs a marketable product. The I.S.I. standard 8828-1978 also lays down that the MCB is to be calibrated. The gate passes covering the inputs describe them (as MCBs - 16 Amp. - unfinished) for further processing. The learned DR does not dispute that calibration is essential for marketability of the item. Further Note 6 to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff sets out as follows ldquo In respect of goods covered by this Section, conversion of an article which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of the complete or finished article (......) into complete or finished article shall amount to manufacture. 4. In view of the above, the processes of calibration, etc. carried out by the respondents amounts to manufacture. 5. In the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals) and accordingly we confirm the same and reject the appeal as already announced in open court.
-
1993 (7) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... al. This is also not correct since sub-heading alone 4911.10 covers trade advertising material and 49.11 other printed matter. The present goods, namely, technical drawings are more akin to lsquo designs rsquo which are specifically covered under 4911.91. 9. Admittedly the drawings are lsquo printed rsquo since the word lsquo printed rsquo also means, inter alia, lsquo photo-copy rsquo and as these drawings are photo-copies. As seen from the Explanatory Notes to HSN the Heading 49.01 covers ldquo literary works of all kinds, text-books and technical publications rdquo (Emphasis supplied) ldquo the drawings under reference are not literary works of any kind but are also not text books or technical publications or even Book of reference. rdquo 10. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Order-in-Appeal is correct in law. The decision as regards the classification of manuals and regarding valuation has not been challenged by the Department. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1993 (7) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units ... ... ... ... ..... o (b) to para 4 of the Notification 175/86 reproduced above, cannot be restricted to cases where a person has filed a declaration under Notification 111/78 or 2/81. The question whether a manufacturer was availing of the exemption would depend upon whether it was liable to avail of the exemption on the basis of the conditions set out in any of the notification listed in para 4(b). rdquo These findings also support the plea of the respondents in these appeals. 11. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Neoli Sugar (supra) the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has held that the exemption notification should be given their due effect, keeping in view the purpose underlying therein. The General Principles of interpretation of taxing statute have been reiterated by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. rsquo s case and M/s. Vishwanath Paper Mills rsquo case cited before us. 12. We do not find any merits in these appeals and hence they are all dismissed.
-
1993 (7) TMI 180 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... s the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, the documents called for by the appellant are not required and the department not having proved that it represents the sale proceeds of smuggled goods, the same should be returned to the appellant forthwith. With respect to the other items seized from the appellant and with respect to the penalty imposed on him, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant the appellant the copies of all the statements which are relied on in the show cause notice as well as the inquiry report relating to the cash balance in the SB Account in Ultadanga Branch of Smt. Kalyani Saha. After furnishing the above documents, the appellant should be given an opportunity to file a statement and thereafter granting a personal hearing, a speaking order should be passed observing the principles of natural justice. This shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1993 (7) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s rsquo , the Notification is inapplicable to the parts, will be to amend the Notification, which the court will not do. In our opinion, therefore, the Notification will apply to parts of the engines mentioned under Heading No. 84.06. rdquo It is thus apparent that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has ignored the Tariff Heading (classification) 84.06 mentioned in the notification with reference to lsquo parts rsquo of internal combustion piston engines in order to give effect to the clear and manifest intention of the notification. Here also intention of the exemption notification being clearly applicable to turbo-alternator, we have to ignore its Tariff Heading 85.01 given in the notification. 4.3 Hence we reject the appeal of the Revenue. Since cross-objection is not maintainable on the aforesaid point and the other point i.e. classification of technical drawings and manuals has not been pressed by the respondents as mentioned in para 1A, cross-objections are also dismissed.
-
1993 (7) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Post clearance expenses on maintenance of durable and returnable packing ... ... ... ... ..... duction at the time of seeking approval of prices as per law, and to produce evidence in support of his claim. 81. In the case before us, we find that the appellants while advancing their case for a number of deductions from their sale prices, have not substantiated their claim by documents or statements. There was reported to be no formal agreement with their buyers for any deduction, charge or discount. The claims are general in nature and no proof of actual expenditure on different counts had been adduced. Some of the claims initially advanced were withdrawn subsequently. For the claims left for consideration it was admitted that they were not covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bombay Tyres International. The Departmental Representative had submitted that wherever legally permissible, actuals have been allowed to the appellants. 82. Taking all these considerations into account, we find no merit in the appeals and all the three appeals are hereby rejected.
-
1993 (7) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit - Withdrawal of - Recovery ... ... ... ... ..... e, Bhubaneshwar reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 101 (Tribunal) 1992 (20) E.T.R. 581. We also find that there is another decision to the same effect in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Sri Sarvaraya Sugar Bottling Unit Ltd. - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 125 (Tribunal) 1991 (37) E.C.R. 617 wherein it has been held that there is no specific provision under modvat rules providing for recovery of modvat credit whereby if in respect of any particular commodity credit allowed is utilised under 57F and facility of modvat is withdrawn and the inputs received earlier to the date of withdrawal of modvat facilities are still lying unutilised. Respectfully following the ratio of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow E/2059/91-NRB with consequential relief if any due to the appellants. 5. The appellants have already obtained relief on limitation before the Assistant Collector and hence E/5078/91 is dismissed as infructuous. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (7) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... al products in or in relation to the manufacture of which such inputs are intended to be used in accordance with the declaration filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57G rdquo . Proviso to this sub-rule, while referring to the credit of duty on inputs used in products cleared for export under bond etc. allows utilisation thereof in respect of similar final products cleared for home consumption. Therefore, the concept of similar final products is built in and the words any inputs and any of the final products used in 3(1) could be interpreted to mean relating to any of the final products of the same broad class or category as may have been declared in Rule 57G particularly as there is no one to one correlation provided for. 9. In the instant case, since both the inputs and outputs have been declared and the duty paid on inputs has been utilised with reference to same broad class of final products, the appellants rsquo arguments are acceptable. The appeals are accordingly accepted.
-
1993 (7) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . But the observations of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 have to be kept in view. They indicate that ldquo process rdquo includes an operation or activity in relation to manufacture And handling and transfer of raw materials, if integrally connected with the process of manufacture, will also constitute a process in relation to manufacture. 11. That apart, it appears to us that while mine cannot be considered as a part of the factory and even the two together cannot constitute an industrial unit, in a broader sense, they can be considered as parts of an integrated establishment complex. We also consider from the way the Notification is worded, that the intention appears to be to extend the benefit in case of captive consumption by industrial units as well as complex integrated establishments. 12. As such, we hold that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of this Notification. Hence we accept the appeal.
-
1993 (7) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ch combine filtration with other methods of purification of water. 42. Even otherwise, the appellants rsquo claim that the arrangement for U.V. treatment ensures purification of water to make it safe, healthy and acceptable for drinking and other household purposes remains to be fully established beyond doubt for want of full technical details and particulars which the appellants have chosen not to disclose or explain. In the context of use of U.V. rays it is important to remember that their wave length and dosage has to be such which would kill the bacteria and other micro-organisms but will not harm the humans and, therefore, anyone claiming to provide safe and healthy water acceptable for human being is required to establish this aspect which gains importance from our point of view from the above definition of purification of water. However, we need not dwell further on this aspect in view of our observations and findings noted above. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (7) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... xamination report on the back of the bill-of-entry indicates the specifications which agree with the invoice. 10. Under the circumstances, it appears that the learned Assistant Collector had made a factual error and the learned Jt. CDR has also not interpreted the facts correctly. He has allowed his imagination a free play in his written submissions. There is nothing to doubt the correctness or genuineness of the documents produced and the arguments of the learned Advocate justify classification as parts particularly in view of the fact that they are designed for specific use in a particular type of pressing plant and were intended to be used as parts. Even if they were replaceable they would only fall in the category of replaceable parts. Furthermore a specific entry will prevail over a general entry of a residuary nature. 11. In view of the evidence produced before us, we consider that the item is correctly classifiable under Heading 8451.90. As such the appeal is accepted.
-
1993 (7) TMI 172 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... 10 of the appellants rsquo goods should be retained by the Department as security and the balance of goods be released provisionally on execution of personal bond for production of these goods in the event of this being liable to confiscation. Variation, if any, in the retention of 10 of the goods as above can be made up by the Collector in case the whole poles taken fall short of 10 by retaining a small additional quantity so that retention is of complete poles. In the alternative, if the above is not for any reason feasible to do, the Collector has the choice of releasing the goods on the execution of a bond with necessary surety on the same basis as the release was allowed in respect of 3 consignments before adjudication, referred to above. 8. Since the matter is pending since November, 1991 without the goods being cleared involving substantial revenue, we direct the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1993 (7) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... uttings. We agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that the word ldquo rejected rdquo on the gate passes does not alter the duty paid character of the inputs and is not sufficient to conclude that the ingots supplied by M/s. Shanti Steel Industries and M/s. Hamco Industries were other than those received by them, from the original manufacturers. We also find that there is no evidence on record to show that the inputs supplied by the two suppliers were different from those received by them in turn from the original manufacturers and it is this fact which has also found favour with the Collector (Appeals) while accepting the claim of M/s. Kartar Steels in the Revenue appeals. 4. In the light of the above discussions, we set aside the orders under challenge in E/347/90-NRB and E/3320/90-NRB and allow these two appeals with consequential relief if any due to the appellants. As a consequence, E/74/91-NRB, E/4724/91-NRB and E/4725/91-NRB filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
1993 (7) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Principles of natural justice violated ... ... ... ... ..... the plea of the Department that the request for cross-examination was waived by the appellants and the finding of the Adjudicating authority that the appellants did not stress for cross-examination during personal hearing, is contrary to the record. It has been laid down in catena of decisions that the principles of natural justice are contravened upon failure to permit cross-examination of witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the authorities - See (1) Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Walker Anjanari and Sons - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 851 (2) GTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 29 (Bom.) . We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the appellants and remand the matters to the Adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in accordance with law. The opportunity of cross-examination and of personal hearing is to be granted to the appellants before a fresh order is passed. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1993 (7) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Polyester Films to be regarded as plastic films ... ... ... ... ..... her that these also do not come within the expression ldquo other rectangular or profile shapes rdquo mentioned in the Table attached to the said Notification No. 228/76, as amended. He submitted that this was the view of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court also which was approved by the Apex Court in the said case as mentioned therein. In reply Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR with his usual fairness submitted that he has nothing to comment except to reiterate what was argued on behalf of the Revenue in the said case of Collector of Customs v. K. Mohan and Co. Exports. 4. Considered. As aforesaid the Apex Court has already held that the Plastic Films are entitled for the benefit of the said Notification for the purpose of additional duty and, therefore, the impugned orders are not in consonance with the ratio of the said decision. Consequently we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, according to law.
-
1993 (7) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... confirmed. He also submitted that the notice is not barred by limitation and the date for computing the normal period of limitation should be 24-11-1988 which is the date of circular issued by the Govt. and not 1-8-1988 which is the date of earlier circular. Coming to the financial position of the appellants, he draws our attention that the appellants have a very high sales income and they will be in a position to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have heard both the sides and carefully considered their submissions. The fact of storage of molasses in katcha pits within the licensed premises, appears to be within the knowledge of the department and further the notice appears to be barred by limitation i.e. beyond the period of 6 months i.e. 1-8-1988 when the Government first withdrew permission to store molasses in katcha pits. We therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the duty demand in the light of the earlier stay order (supra).
-
1993 (7) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import - Registration of Contract ... ... ... ... ..... be finalised at the time of debonding, it was open to the Department to take into account the tariff, the rules and regulations and the notifications in force at the time of clearance for home consumption and to finalise the assessment accordingly (keeping in view, inter alia, the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962). 13. In respect of the items imported in 1986, the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, obviously applied. The registration aspect was, therefore, required to be reviewed in the light of the new tariff and the new regulations and the benefit as may be found due extended to them accordingly. 14. As the above aspects have not been kept in view by the authorities below, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration in accordance with the law and the above observations with the directions that the appellant may be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the case is decided.
............
|
